M/S SHARDA METALS AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 38205 of 2026

M/s. Sharda Metals and others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          :   Saurabh Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana

Court No. - 2
                  HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
                  HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1.    Heard Mr. Saurabh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 3 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.


2.   The petitioners have challenged an order dated 02.09.2026 passed by
the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Aligarh under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for
short).


3.    The proceedings under Section 14 SARFAESI Act are by way of
execution on decisions already taken, and are largely ministerial. The
substantial measure, by which the petitioner is aggrieved, is possession
notice issued under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act. There is little cavil
that a notice under Section 13(4) was issued to the petitioner, a mention of
which occurs in the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue) impugned dated 02.09.2026 passed under Section 14.


4.        If the petitioner has anything to say against the recovery
proceedings, it is by way of an application under Section 17 SARFAESI
Act against the notice/measures taken under Section 13(4) SARFAESI
                                                                                            WRIC No. 38205 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                        Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.


                                    5.      In view of existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy, we
                                    are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is, accordingly,
                                    dismissed.



                                                                          (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    I. Batabyal




Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad